Chapter IV. Ministers

Volume III pp. 104–131

Chapter IV. Ministers

Amātya—The second of the seven elements of rājya is the amātya, which word may be translated as ‘minister.’ There are three words that are interchangeable though sometimes distinguished, viz. amātya, saciva and mantrin, the first being the oldest of the three. A Kārikā on Pāṇini (IV. 2 104) teaches the formation of the word with the affix tyap (tya) from amū meaning ‘near or with’ (vide Mahābhāṣya, vol. II. p 292). In Ṛg. IV. 4. 1¹ there is the germ of this word ‘O Agni! Go like a king riding an elephant, accompanied by his ministers’. Yāska (in Nirukta VI. 12) explains ‘amavān’ as ‘amātyavān,’ though two more explanations of the word are offered by hiṃ The word amātya itself occurs in Ṛg. VII. 15. 3, but there it is an adjective and means ‘our own’ or ‘abiding in our house’. In some of the sūtras like the Baudhāyanapitr-medhasūtra (I. 4. 13, I. 12 7) the word amātya is used in the sense of ‘near male relations in the house’. Vide H Dh. vol II. p. 588 ṇ 1375. The word ‘amātya’ occurs in the sense of minister in Āp Dh. S II. 10. 25 10 ‘The king should not live better or more luxuriously than his gurus (elders) and his ministers (gurūnāmātyānśca nātijīvet).’ The word ‘saciva’ occurs in the Ait Br (XII 9) where it is said that Indra considered the Maruts as his ‘sacivas’ (helpers or comrades). The necessity of amātyas or sacivas is stated in graphic language by several writers Kauṭilya (I 7 last verse) says ‘kingship is possible only with (the aid of) assistants, a single wheel cannot work (a chariot), therefore the king should appoint ministers and listen to their opinions’. Manu (VII 55 = Śukra II. 1) says ‘it is difficult for a person single-handed to accomplish even an easy task, how can government particularly, which has great good as its aim, be accomplished without helpers’? The Matsya-purāṇa (215. 2) prescribes ‘the king, while his head is still wet with the waters of coronation, if he wants to supervise his State, should choose his helpers, as in the latter the kingdom secures stability’. Matsya 215 3 is the same as Manu VII 55 Vide Vismudharmottara II. 24. 2-3 which are the same as Matsya 215. 2-3; also Śānti 106. 11 and Rājantīprakāśa p. 174. From and 8, Manu VII. 54 and 60, Kāṃ IV. 25, 27, XIII. 24 and 64 it appears that they use the words saciva and amātya as synonyms Rudradāman in his Junāgadh Inscription² ( E. I. vol. VIII. p. 36 at p. 44 ) states that his great enterprise to repair the Sudarśana lako was disapproved of by his advisory ( mati-saciva ) and executive councillors ( karma- saciva) who were all endowed with the qualities required in amātyas and yet who were averse to the project and had no enthusiasm for it, since the breach to be repaired was very great Here sacivas are divided into two sorts, those who give advice and those who execute the business decided upon and the word saciva seems to be a synonym of amātya. Amara³ states that the amātya who is a dhisaciva ( i e malisacva ) is called a mantrin, while amātyas other than the mantrin are called karmasacivaṣ These distinctions are often not observeḍ Sumantra is called amātya in Rāmāyaṇa I. 7 3 and the best of mantrins in I. 8. 4. In Ayodhyā 112. 17 amātya and mantrin seem to be distinguisheḍ From Kaut. I 8 (last verse) 'Having divided the spheres of their powers and having taken into consideration the time and place and the work they have to do, all these persons should be appointed as ministers ( amātyas ), but not as mantrins,' it follows that mantrins were regarded by Kauṭilya as of a higher grade than amātyas in general. The R. N. P. p. 178 says that the amātyas are also styled mantrins Kauṭilya states ( I. 10 ) how amātyas are to be tested by upadhās i. e by means of tempting them as regards each of dharn ma, artha, kāma, and bhaya (fear) and to be employed if found honest after any one of the four tests, while mantrins were to be appoint- ed only if their integrity and loyalty were proved by all the tests combined Upadha⁴ is defined by the Nitivākyāmṛta p 111 as 'testing the mind of a person as regards dharma, artha, kāma and bhaya by various devices' (employed by secret agents) Kāt (4-5) quoted by R. N. P. p. 136 states that the minds of kings always go astray on the ( slightest) cause by reason of the fact that they possess great valour, knowledge, wealth and particularly the fact that they possess absolute power; therefore brāhmaṇas should always enlighten the mind of the king as to the duties of a king.

About the number of members in the council of ministers there has been a great divergence of views from ancient times Kauṭ I 15 and Kāṃ XI. 67-68 state that according to the Mānava school the council (pariṣad) of ministers should be constituted of twelve amātyas, acc. to the Bārhaspatyas of 16, acc to the Auśanasas of 20, but Kauṭilya's own opinion was that the number is determined by the power or exigencies of the State (yathāśūmarthyam) The Bālakāṇḍa ( 7 2-3 ) states that Daśaratha had eight honest and devoted amātyas (who are then named) Manu VII. 54 and Mānasollāsa (II. 2. verse 57 ) require that the king should select seven or eight ministers who should be hereditary, versed in the śāstras, brave, born of high family and well-testeḍ This advice was followed by Shivaji, the founder of the Maratha empire, who had a council of eight ministers (Pradhānas). Vide Ranade's 'Rise of the Maratha Power' pp 125–126 where he describes the functions of the eight ministers called ' Mukhya-pradhāna ' (Prime minister )', Pant Amātya (Finance minister), Pant Sachiva (General Accountant and Auditor), Senāpati (Commander-in-chief), Mantrī (in charge of king's private affairs), Sumanta (Foreign Secretary), Panditrao (in charge of the Ecclesiastical Department ), Nyāyādhīśa (Chief Justice ). This list was probably taken by Shivaji's advisers from the Śukranītisāra II 71-72 where almost, the same eight are said to be the ministers according to some. Vide also Grant Duff's History of the Marathas, vol. I. p. 193, and Rao Bahadur Wad's selections of sanads and letters ( in Marathi) published by Messrṣ Mawajee and Parasnis in 1913, where the names of the eight ministers of Shivaji are stated and their duties are described (p. 123 ). In the Śāntiparva (85. 7-9 ) it is declared that the king should have 37 sacivas, of whom 4 should be learned and bold brāhmaṇas, 8 valiant kṣatriyas, 21 prosperous vaiśyas, 3 śūdras and one sūta versed in the Purāṇas, but verse 11 adds that the king should discuss and settle lines of policy in the midst of eight mantrins and Śānti 83 47 says that mantrins should not be less than three. In the Rāmāyaṇa (II. 100. 71 ) Rāma whom Bharata came to meet in the former's exile asks him whether he held consultation with three or four mantrins and (in verse 18 = Sabhāparva 5. 30 ) Rāma hopes that Bharata did not settle his policies by himself alone or in consultation with too many ministerṣ Kauṭilya also (I.15) lays down that the king should hold consultation with three or four mantrins The Nītivākyāmṛta ( mantrisamuddeśa pp. 127-128) holds that they should be three, five or seven, that unanimity is difficult to secure in a group of persons of different characters and that when there are many ministers they are jealous and try to carry out their own ideaṣ These passages show that firstly there was to be a small cabinet of three or four ministers, secondly there was to be a council (pariṣad) of ministers who might be eight or more in number according to requirements and thirdly there was a large number of amātyās or sacivas (high functionaries concerned with various departments). The council is mentioned in the 3rd and 6th Rock Edicts of Aśoka (Corpus I. I. vol. I. p. 4 'pariṣā pi yute ājñāpayisati') in the words 'the council will order the officers called Yuktas'. The qualifica- tions of ministers (amātyas) are laid down in several places e. g. in Kauṭilya I. 9, Manu VII. 54, Yāj. I. 312, Kāṃ IV. 25-30 (of which verses 28-30 are almost the same as the words of Kauṭilya³⁴), Śānti 118 2-3 (14 qualities of mantrins are men- tioned), Śānti 80. 25-28, Bālakāṇḍa 7. 7-14, Ayodhyakāṇḍa 100. 15, Medhātithi on Manu VII. 54, Agnipurāṇa 239. 11-15 (= Kāṃ IV. 25 and 28-31), Mānasollāsa II. 2, verses 52-59, Nītivāky- āmṛta p. 108, Rājanītiratnākara pp 13-14 (quoting Nārada and Harita ), Rājanītiprakāśa pp 174-178, Rājadharmakaustubha pp. 251-254, Budhabhūṣaṇa pp. 32, 57-58. Only the qualities required by Kauṭilya in amātya are set out here : He must be a native of the country, born of high family, influential, well- trained in arts, far-sighted, wise, of good memory, vigilant, eloquent, bold, intelligent, endowed with enthusiasm and dignity, capable of endurance, pure (in mind and actions), well-disposed, firmly devoted ( to the king ), endowed with character, strength, health, spiritedness, free from arrogance and fickleness, affectionate, who would not have recourse to hatred (even when offended by the king). Kauṭilya states that amātyas are of three kinds, the best, middling and inferior, of which the first must be endowed in full with the qualities set out by him and the other two are deficient by one quarter and a half respectively. In Śānti 83. 35-40 the faults that disqualify a person for being a mantrin are stated and verses 41-46 set out the qualifications for a mantrin, one of which deserves special notice, viz. (verse 46) he should have secured the confidence of the pauras and janapadaṣ Many works prescribe that the ministers were to be hereditary if the son was capable like his father, e.g. Manu VII 54, Yaj I 312, Rāmāyaṇa II 100 26 (=Sabhāparva 5. 43), Agni. 220 16–17, Śukra II 114. The Matsya 215 83–84 and Agnipurāṇa (220 16–17) add the very sensible remark that such hereditary ministers should not be allowed to dispose of the cases of their dāyādas (agnates). The Viṣṇudharmottara (II 24 55–56) contains the same rule. This hereditary character is borne out by many inscriptionṣ For example, in the Allahabad stone pillar inṣ of Samudragupta, Hariṣeṇa is himself a Mahādaṇḍa-nāyaka whose father Dhruvabhūti was also a Mahādaṇḍa-nāyaka (Gupta Inscriptions pp. 10, 15) and in the Udayagiri cave Inscription of Candragupta II (ibid p. 34) Virasena is described as ‘anvayaprāptasācivya’ (who hereditarily obtained the post of saciva). The R. N. P. (p. 176) after quoting the Matsya-purāṇa expressly states that the hereditary principle was to be given up, if the son or grandson of a former minister had not the requisite qualifications, but that such a descendant was to be employed only in such state work as was suited to his ⁵ attainmentṣ The mantrins should, according to most authorities, be chosen from among brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, but not from śūdras, even if the latter be endowed with qualities (vide Śukra II. 426–427, Nītivākyāmṛta p. 108) ⁶. The consultation with the council of ministers was to be in secret. Kauṭilya (I 15) says ‘All administrative undertakings must be preceded by consultation with ministerṣ The place for consultation should be so secluded that the conversation going on inside will not be heard outside and that even birds cannot be narrated that secret consultations were divulged by parrots, mamas, dogs and other lower animals’ ⁷. The Harṣacarita VI states that Nāgasena of the Nāga dynasty met destruction in Padmāvatī because his secret policy was divulgeḍ III] by a manū, Śrutavarman lost his kingdom in Srāvastī as his secret was disclosed by a parrot, and king Suvarnacūda met death in Mrttikāvatī by babbling in a dream about his policy. Vide also Manu VII. 147–150, Yāj. I. 344, Kāṃ XI. 53, 65–66, Agnipurāṇa 225. 19, Mānasollāsa II 9, verses 700–705 p 92. Kaut. (I 15) has a verse ‘no outsider should know the king's secret policy which he desires to carry out Only those who are to carry it out should know it only when it is begun or accomplished’. Vide for a similar rule Manu VII. 105 (=Śānti 140 24 which is also the last but one verse in Kaut. I 15)⁸ The king presided in the council, but if he was not present the chief minister presided (Manu VII. 141 ). In the Mālavikāgnimitra (V) the king’s decision to make a drāv ājiya is conveyed to the council of ministers and then the amātya (who here means the chief minister or President of the council) informs the king that the council agreed with the king, where- upon the king asks the council to depute the commander-in- chief Virasena to carry out the proposal. Kaut. further says (I 15) that all business was to be transacted in the presence of the ministers; but if any one was absent his opinion was to be elicited by despatching a letter. In matters of emergency (or great danger ) the king is to call his cabinet ministers and the council of ministers and what the majority decide or what would lead to success is to be carried out by the king. Śukra I.365 also refers to the view of the majority. It is the duty of the ministers, according to Kāṃ IV. 41–49, to prevent a king from pursuing an evil course, it is the duty of the king to listen to the advice of his ministers and such ministers are not merely his friends but are really his guruṣ⁹ Śukra (II. 82–83) asks ‘How can the kingdom be brought to prosperity by those ministers whom the king is not afraid to offend ? They are no better than ladies who are to be decked with ornaments and fine clotheṣ What is the use of those ministers, whose advice does not tend to the advancement of the kingdom, the people, the army, the treasury, good government and to the destruction of enemies? The ministers, however, must have found it difficult to please the king and also to placate the subjects A well-known subhāsita states that one who looks to the benefit of the king comes to be hated by the people and he who looks to the good of the people (only) is abandoned by the king; when there is this great conflict it is rare to find a person who can secure the aims of both the king and the people ¹⁰ Manu (VII 56-59 ) prescribes the matters in which consultations are to be held with ministers and the procedure thereof, viz. peace and war, sthāna (i e army, treasury, capital and the country), sources of revenue, protection (of himself and of the country), the proper bestowal of the wealth obtained, the king is to ascertain the opinions of ministers separately and then jointly and then do what is beneficial; he is then to hold consultation on the most important affairs relating to the six means of policy with a wise brāhmaṇa who is the most distinguished of all ministers and always to rely upon him, to settle all lines of policy finally on his advice and then to act Yāj I 312 also requires the king to consult his mantrīs, then a brāhmaṇa (purohita) and thereafter to decide himself the course of action The principal matters which mantrins have to concentrate themselves upon, acc to Kām XIII 23-24 (=Agnipurāṇa 241 16-18), are: mantra, securing the fruit of the line of policy adopted (such as conquering a country and protecting it), the carrying out of the business (of the State ), predicting the good or evil effects ( of an action taken ), revenue and expenditure, govern ment (i e punishing those who deserve punishment), subduing enemies, measures against calamities like famine, guarding the king and the kingdoṃ¹¹ The Nītivākyāmṛta (p 185) concisely puts the same by saying that amātyas have to concern them selves with revenue, expenditure, guarding the ruler (i e his body, his dharma, wife and children), looking after the army in all its arms

Yāj I 343 says 'since the State depends upon manha (i e. lives of policy arrived at after consultation with ministers), the king should keep his lines of policy secret in such a way that people should not know them till the results of his undertakings manifest themselves'. Kauṭilya (X. 6 last verse) emphasizes the importance of mantra in 'an arrow discharged by an archer may kill one man or none at all, but a (well-considered) operation by a wise man may destroy even those who are only conceived' ¹² Both Sabhāparva 5. 27 and Ayodhyā 100. 16 have the same verse, viz mantra is the root of victory.¹³ Kauṭilya and the Nitivākyāmṛta p.114 say that mantra accomplishes the following, viz. the apprehension of what is not or cannot be seen, imparting the strength of definite conclusion to what is apprehended, removal of doubt when two courses or opinions are possible, inference of an entire matter when only a part is seeṇ¹⁴ In most works such as Kaut. I. 15, Kāṃ XI. 56, Agnipurāṇa 241. 4, Pañcatantra I p 85, Mānasollāsa (II. 9 verse 697 ff, p 92) it is said that mantra has five elements which have to be considered (it is pañcānga), viz. means of carrying out actions (or works), plenty of men and materials, proper allotment of time and place, remedies against pitfalls, the (happiness of the kingdom or people) that will result from the accomplishment of the course decided upoṇ¹⁵

The high functionaries and office-holders have been different at different timeṣ In the Vedic age, in the performance of the Rājasūya, there are certain offerings (generally twelve in number) which are called 'ratninām havīmsi'. Their order and names differ in different texts, though most are the same in all. Besides the king (the sacrificer), the eleven 'ratnas' (jewels) or 'ratnins' are (according to the Śat Br. V 3. 2). the commander-in-chief, the purohita, the crowned queen, sūta grāmaṇī, ksaṭṭr (chamberlain), sangrahītr (treasurer or charioteer?), akṣavāpa (superintendent of gambling or of the records?), bhāgadugha (collector of taxes), govikartana ‘? hunter’, dūta (courier), parivṛkti (discarded queen) Vide H Dh vol II p. 1215 n and 1216 In Tai Br (I 7 3) they are the same as above except that govikartana is omitted and the queen called ‘vāvaṭā’ is added These are described in the bestowers of the kingdom (ete vai rāstrasya pradātāraḥ). Vide also Tai S I 8 9 1-2. It is clear from Śat Br V 3 2 2 and 4 that some of these jewels like the commander-in-chief and the huntsman were of low caste or of the śūdra caste Later on certain functionaries began to be called tīrthas, their number being 18; vide Sabhāparva 5. 38 (=Ayodhyā 100. 36) and Śānti 69 52 for a reference to the 18 tīrthaṣ¹⁶ Kauṭilya (I 12) speaks of the 18 tīrthas and enumerates them¹⁷ In the Raghuvaṁśa 17.68 Kālidāsa employs the word tīrtha in this sense. According to the Nītivākyāmṛta (p 29) persons who are helpers in dharma and state business are called tīrtha In the Edicts of Aśoka the high officers were called mahāmātras (in Rock Edict XII there are dharma-mahāmātras) and other officers were yuktas, rājukas and prādeśikas (in Rock Edict III) of whom the first at least were subordinate to the council of ministerṣ Later writers like Govindarāja on Ayodhyā 100 36, the com on the Yaśastilaka I. p. 91 differ as to the names of these 18.¹⁸ The Rājataraṅgiṇī I. 120 informs us that in former times there were only seven departments ( karmasthānas ), that later on they became 18 and that five more were added to these eighteen ( IV. 142-143 and 512 ) viz. mahāpratihāra, mahāsaṁdhivigraha, mahāśvavāsāla, mahābhaṇḍāgāra, mahāsādhanabhāga ( and so the Heads were called ‘ adhigata-pañcamahāśabda ’ i. e. to whom five titles with ‘ mahā ’ in them were given ).¹⁹ The Agni- purāṇa 220 mentions several high functionaries like the senāpati, pratīhāra, dūta and heads of departmentṣ The Śukra- Nītisāra ( II. 69-70 ) enumerates ten principal high functionaries of the king ( prakṛtis ) viz. purodhas ( purohita ), pratinidhi, pradhāna ( President of council ), saciva ( war minister ), mantrin ( Home minister ), prādvīvāka ( minister of justice ), paṇḍita ( minister of ecclesiastical matters ), sumantra ( Finance minister ), amātya ( revenue minister ) and dūta ( minister of diplomatic relations ) and remarks that others omitted purodhas and dūta from this list of ten and held that these eight should all receive the same pay ( verses 71-72 ), while Śukra was of opinion that the ten high dignitaries should each receive in order one tenth more as pay than the succeeding one ( v. 71 ), that the purohita was the most eminent of all, that among the rest each preceding was more eminent than each succeeding one ( II. 74-77 ), that after these high dignitaries came the other officers ( adhikarigaṇa, II. 279 ), that then came the darśaka ( secretary ? ), and lekhaka ( clerk ), then the menial servants who waited on the king and lastly the lowest were those who carried out dirty work. In II. 84-87 Śukra briefly brings out the special functions of the ministers from pratinidhi to dūta¹⁵⁰ and then in II. 88-105 at length. In I. 353-361 Śukra lays down how the king's public durbar should be arranged, viz. the king's throne should be in the centre of the western half of the hall on which the king should sit well-dressed, wearing his crown, armour and a drawn sword; his sons, grandsons, brother's and sister's sons should sit behind him, his daughter's sons should sit on his right and on his left should sit in order his uncles, chief agnates, members of the assembly, commanders; in front of the king to his right should be seated his maternal grandfather's relatives, the man- trins, and to the left his father-in-law, wife's brother, officers &c. The Śukranītisāra (I 374-376) lays down certain very practical rules for the king: 'he should personally observe villages, towns and districts every year; he should see whether his subjects are kept contented or are harassed by his officers, he should not side with the officers (with the man on the spot) but rather should take the side of the subjects, he should remove an officer who is hateful to many (lit. a hundred) people and an amātya should be removed if he is found to commit several illegal actṣ Śukra (in II. 107-113) further advises the change of portfolios among the ministers (e. g. sumantra should be appointed amātya or vice versa); he says that for each department three should be engaged, one the most clever being the head and two others being darśakas (secretaries) who should be changed every three, five, seven or ten years; one man should not be allowed to hold the same high office for a long time, since otherwise he becomes intoxicated with power,¹⁵¹ servants should not do any business without a written order nor should a king order any- thing to be done except in writing-(II. 290).

The words in Aśoka's Edict III 'pañcasu pañcasu vāsesu niyātu' probably refer to the practice of the transfer of high III} officers every five yearṣ The 6th caste men- thenes (Fragment 1 p. 41 and Fragment XXXIII p. 85 in McCrindle’s ‘Ancient India’) that was of overseers who inquired into and superintended all that went on in India, and made reports to the king or, where there was no king, to the magistrate. Megasthenes probably confounded the ministers and adhyaksas (who were often hereditary) with a caste. Vide also Fragment XXXIV pp. 86–88 about the officers of state and their dutieṣ It is probably on account of some such rule as is stated in Śukra about frequent change of portfolios that in the inscriptions high functionaries have epithets prefixed to them which indicate their connection with several portfolios e. g. in the Banskhēra plate of Emperor Harșa (E. I. vol. IV p. 208 at p. 211) Skanda- gupta (who is probably the same as the Skandagupta mentioned by Bāṇa in the Harṣacarita VI as commander of the elephant arm) was the dūtaka of the grant and is described as ‘mahāpramātāra- mahāsāmanta’; in the Allahabad stone pillar Inṣ of Emperor Samudragupta (Gupta Inscriptions p. 10 and p. 15 ṇ 4), Harisena is described as ‘Sāndhivigrāhika’ (minister for peace and war), ‘Kumārāmātya’ (the minister of the Yuvarāja?) and Mahā-danda- nāyaka ²² (commander of an army); Pṛthvisena (a brāhmaṇa) is described as mantrin, kumārāmātya and then mahābala- dhikṛta (in E. I. vol X p. 72, of Gupta Samvat 117). In theory and practice the king was to issue orders in the presence or under the advice of his principal ministers We read in the grant of Rājarāja I of the Eastern Cālukya dynasty that he issued his command in the presence of the mantrin, purohita, senāpati, yuvarāja, dauvārika and pradhāna (E. I vol IV. p. 300 at p. 302). Śukra (II. 362–370) describes the procedure followed in issuing orders about State businesṣ First the mantrin, prādvīvāka (Chief Judge), paṇḍita (head of ecclesiastical department), and dūta should write out the business relating to their departments, then the amātya should write thereon (‘sādhu likhanam-asti’, the writing is good), sumantra adds ‘samyag vicāritam’ (it is well considered), the pradhāna writes ‘satyam yathārtham’ (it is the truth, it is as the business requires), pratinidhi should write ‘aṅgīkartuun yogyam’ (it is proper to accept this), the yuvarāja should write ‘aṅgīkartavyam’ (it should be accepted), the purohita should write ‘lekbyam svā- bhimatam’ (this writing is approved by me); all then should make their seals after their remarks and then the king should write ‘angikrtam’ ²³ (it is accepted) and affix his seal

The Rājataraṅgiṇī shows that persons often rose to ministerial positions from low birth e g. (V. 73) it states that an engineer of Avantivarman was a foundling, (VII. 207) a watch- man became chief minister.

It is necessary to say a few words about some of the great officers of State. First comes the Yuvarāja Kauṭilya devotes one chapter (I. 17) to taking care of the prince. The subjects of the prince’s education, his association with state business, treatment of princes, good or bad, the coronation of a yuvarāja have already been dealt with (pp. 49, 83 &c. ). The younger brother or eldest son was made yuvarāja (Crown Prince) during the reigning king’s life (Ayodhyā, chap. 3-6, Kāṃ VII 6, Śukra II 14-16) Rāma on his coronation as king made Bharata the Crown Prince when Lakṣmaṇa refused to be so.(Yuddha 131.93). The yuvarāja and princes were often sent as governors of different parts of the realṃ The Divyāvadāna (XXVI p 371) states that Aśoka was sent by his father Bindusāra to Takṣaśilā to pacify popular disturbances and Emperor Aśoka himself is said to have sent his son Kuṇāla from Pāṭalīputra to the same town to pacify the citizens that had been offended by the arrogance of the amātyas (ibid pp 407-8) Khāravela in the Hāthigumphā Ins (E I. vol XX at pp. 79, 86) was a yuvarāja for nine years from his 16th to his 24th year From the Mālavikāgnimitra we learn that while Puṣyamitra was virtual emperor of Bhāratavarṣa his son Agnimitra was ruling at Vidīśā and had the authority to divide the kingdom of Berar between two brothers, Yajñasena and Mādhavasena The yuvarāja is not generally enumerated in the lists of mantrins, but he is one of the 18 tīrthas and from Śukra (above p 115) it appears that he had a seal and important matters passed through his hands along with those of the ministerṣ According ²⁴ to Śukra (II. 12) the yuvarāja and the group of amātyas are the two arms or eyes of the king, but Śukra V. 17 warns the king against transferring all power to the Crown Prince except when the king is about to die. The Matsyapurāṇa 220. 7 quoted in the Budhabhūṣaṇa (p. 33) prescribes that the king should entrust to the well-disciplined prince at first unimportant offices and then gradually important oneṣ²⁵ If a prince was ill-behaved he was not to be abandoned as he would go over to the enemies and harm the king, but he should be kept confined in a guarded place (Kāṃ VII 6, Budhabhūṣaṇa pp 33, 35, verses 77, 93). As regards his emoluments he was placed on the same footing as the mantrin, purohita, senāpati, the queen, the king's mother (Kaut V. 3). What office is meant by the Kumārāmātya in some of the Inscriptions (e. g. Gupta Inṣ pp. 10, 50, E I vol X p. 72, E. I vol XI p. 83) is not clear. It does not probably mean 'a royal prince who was also an amātya', but rather some minister attached to the yuvarāja, as contradistinguished from rājāmātya (which office occurs in Gupta Inscriptions, p. 218). It appears that in ancient times provincial governors could be total strangers to the royal family. From Rudradāman's Junāgadh Inṣ we learn that the governor of Surāṣṭra under Candragupta Maurya was a vaiśya called Pusyagupta and under Ašoka a Yavana noble or king called Tusāspa²⁶ (E. I. VIII p 36 at p. 43).

Next comes the purohita. In H. Dh. vol. II pp. 40 and 363 it has been already shown how purohitas existed from the most ancient period of the Ṛgveda, how the purohita was thought to be half the soul of the king and how the co-operation of the spiritual teacher and the secular head (the king) was deemed absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the kingdom, how Gautama (XI 12-14) and Āp Dh. S II 5 10. 16 prescribed the qualities of the purohita. Our authorities show that the purohita was not a mere priest. The Ait Br. (40. 2) calls the purohita 'rāṣṭragopa' (the saviour of the kingdom). The Śukranīti also, though a very late work, similarly describes the purohita (II. 74) as 'rājarāśtrabhr̥t' (the supporter of the king and the kingdom ) In the Ṛgveda III. 53. 12 we find the idea that the hymns and the spiritual power of the purohita Viśvāmitra protected the Bharata clan ²⁷ He made the king ready for battle and accompanied him in battle murmuring ‘ where the arrows fly &c’. (Ṛg. VI. 75 17) while the fight went on (vide Āśv. Gr III 12 19 quoted below ṇ 308 ) The Viṣṇudharmaśūtra III 70, Yāj I 313, Kāṃ IV 32 require that the purohita was to be well versed ²⁸ in the vedas, itihāsa, dharmaśāstra or danda- niti, in astrology and portents, in rites of propitiation contained in the Atharvaveda, of high family, endowed with all vṛdyūs and good acts as stated in the śāstras and with austeritieṣ Kaut- (I 9) states almost the same qualifications for the purohita, requires the king to honour his advice as a pupil honours his teacher or a son his father or a servant his master and says that royal power advanced by brāhmaṇas, enforced as with a spell by the consultations of mantrins and endowed as with a weapon by the observance of śāstric rules becomes invincible and secures success Vide Ādi. 170 74-75, 174. 14-15, Śānti. 72. 2-18 and chap. 73, Rājanītiprakāśa pp 59-61 and 136-137, Rāja- dharma-kaustubha pp 255-257 for qualifications expected in the purohita Kauṭilya (X 3) states that while a battle is going on the ( chief ) minister and purohita should urge on and encourage the soldiers by exhorting them with verses from the Veda and classical Sanskrit, promising great rewards in the next world for those who fall in battle The Śukranītisāra (II. 78-80) requires in the purohita among other qualities the study of dhanurveda, proficiency in arms and in formations of armies for battle and possession of so much religious merit as to be able to pronounce an effective curse A purohita was to be distinguished from a ṛtvij (a sacrificial priest) as Manu VII 78 and Yāj I 314 show Vide Mānasollāsa II 2 60 (p 34) Rājanītiratnākara pp 16-17, Viṣṇudharmottara II. 5, Agni 239 16-17 for further passages on purohita Some authorities include III ] the purohita among amātyas or mantrins (e. g. Vijñāneśvara on Yāj. I. 353, Śukra II. 69-70), while others like Yāj. I 312 regard him as distinct from mantrinṣ The purohita was often hereditary. Acc. to Kauṭilya quoted above he was to employ means declared in the Atharvaveda to remove calamities, divine and humaṇ The great divine calamities acc. to Kauṭilya IV. 3 are fire, flood, disease, famine, rats, wild elephants, snakes and evil spiritṣ²⁹ According to Manu VII. 78 the purohita was concerned with the religious rites laid down in the śrauta and gṛhya sūtras and Āp II. 5. 10. 14-17 show that the purohita had complete jurisdiction in matters of penance for offenceṣ Vaṣ (19. 40-42) provides that if the king lets off an offender deserving to be punished the king had to fast for a day and the purohita for three days and to perform the heavy penance of Kṛcchra if the king punished the innocent. According to most authorities he played a role that was pre-eminently religious He is not mentioned among the 10 limbs of the sabhā in the administration of justice. Kāt. 24 (quoted in S. V. p. 20) does not require him to be an expert in arthaśāstra, though Kāt 56 quoted by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 2 and Sṃ C. (II. p. 14) say that the king should enter the Hall of Justice with learned brāhmaṇas, the ministers, the chief justice, the purohita &c. Yāj. I 312 and the Mit. on Yāj. I 312-313 on the other hand prescribe that even after consulting all mantrins, the king was finally to consult the purohita in all secular and religious matterṣ The Nītivākyāmṛta (purohitasamuddeśa) p 160 states that the divine calamities are: shower of fire (fall of lightning ?), excessive rainfall, epidemics, famine, damage or disease of crops, swarms of locusts and other vermin, diseases, goblins and female evil spirits, snakes, wild elephants, ratṣ The purohita is required to know ritual of five kinds,³⁰ viz. that dealing with the propitiation of Nakṣatras, that of śrauta sacrifices, that of samūlas ( of Tantra worship ), that of Atharvaśiras and that of sāntis (such as grahaśānti &c. ). Calamities, according to Kāṃ XIII. 20–21, are of two sorts, divine (daiva) and human: there are five kinds of the first viz. fire, flood, disease, famine and epidemic, all of which can be met by human effort and by propitiatory rites, while human calamities should be withstood by constant effort and by proper lines of policy. The same verses are Agnipurāṇa 241 14–16.

Acc to Kauṭilya (V 3) 48000 panas were the salary of the (royal) sacrificial priest, ācārya (teacher), mantrin, purohita, commander-in-chief, crown prince, the king's mother, the queens and he holds that “with that amount of maintenance they would not yield to temptation or revolt (against the king)”.³¹ The amātyas, the chief judge and even the purohita could be punished by the king, acc to Manu, if any of them went wrong (VIII 335 and IX 234) and Kaut. (IX. 3 ) prescribes that when the purohita is guilty even of a great offence, the remedy is to imprison him or banish hiṃ Some great ministers, though not exactly purohitas of the king, were learned brāhmaṇas and led simple lives such as Cāṇakya and Mādhava There is divergence of views about the salaries set out in the Arthaśāstra (V. 3). Jayaswal (in ‘Hindu Polity’ part II p 136) holds that the salaries were yearly and the panas in which they were paid were silver oneṣ Prof Dīkṣitar (in ‘Mauryan Polity’ p 151) holds that the salaries were monthly Confusion is caused by the fact that there were panas of copper, silver and gold Vide Rājanītiprakāśa p 294 The Rājataraṅgiṇī VII 950 speaks of dinnāras as of gold, silver and copper Rao Bahadur K. V Rangaswami Aiyangar holds that the salaries (in the Arthaśāstra) were monthly and in golden panas (in ‘Ancient Indian Polity’ pp 44–45) Therefore this matter must be investigated Manu (VIII 13) promises that those names of copper, silver and gold coins which are well-known among the people (of its day) for purposes of trade will be described by him Acc. to Manu VIII. 134 and 136, Viṣṇu Dh S IV. 6–10, and Yaj I 363-365 five kṛṣṇalas are equal to a māsa, 16 māsas are equal to a suvarṇa, 4 suvarṇas (or five acc. to some) are equal to a pala, a karṣa is equal to ⅓ of a pala and a piece of copper one-fourth of a pala in weight is called a pana, which is the same as kārṣāpaṇa ³² (equal to 80 raktikās or III ] guñjā berries). A pala was equal to 320 raktikāṣ Kaut II.19 says practically the same thing. In Kaut. V. 3 the salaries range from 48000 to 60 paṇas from the highest functionaries to the lowest servantṣ They must all be taken to be for the same period in every case and in the same metal, since Kaut expressly states no different periods and no difference in metal. Ordinarily the words paṇa and kārṣāpaṇa (as stated by Manu VIII 136 and the Mit. on Yāj. I. 365 and the Śukranīti IV. 1. 116 ) refer to copper pieces (used as coins) and bearing a stamp. Another table given by Manu VIII 135-136, Viṣṇu Dh. S, VI. 11-12, Yāj. I 364 is: 2 raktikās⁴¹ or kṛṣṇalas = one (silver) māṣa, 16 māṣas = one

162. A raktikā was found by General Cunningham after many experiments in weigh on an average 1.8 grains (vide his ‘Coins of Ancient India’ pp 45-46 and also Rapson’s ‘Coins’ pp. 2-3) So that a silver dharaṇa or purāṇa (of 32 raktikās) should weigh about 57. 6 grains and a copper paṇa (of 80 raktikās) should weigh 144 grains It appears that the weights of Indian coins in different parts and at different times varied a good deal. Cunningham (‘Coins of Ancient India’ p. 5) states that gold was cheap in India, being as one to eight rates of silver. But in medieval times 1. e. about 1300 A. D. (vide Śukra IV. 2 92-93 ) gold was 16 times the price of the same weight of silver, which again was 80 times of the price of the same weight of copper. Though, as stated in ante 161 above, a copper paṇa was usually equal to eighty raktikās, a copper paṇa of 100 raktikās (1. e of 20 māṣas) was knowṇ Nār. (parisiṣṭa verse 58) speaks of māṣa as the 20th part of the kārṣāpaṇa and the Mit on Yāj. I 365 and Vy Nırṇaya p 207 quote a verse (attributed in Uśanas by Haradatta and Maskarin on Gaut. XII 19) that a māṣa is a twentieth part of pana ( माषो विंशतिमो भागः पणस्य परिकीर्तितः ). The Agnipurāṇa (227 2) appears to have known a paṇa of 120 kṛṣṇalas ( कृष्णलानां तथा पञ्चषा कर्षार्धं राम कीर्तितम् ) The verses in Nār. (parisiṣṭa 58-60) are ascribed to Kāt by the Sm C II. p 99 and it is stated by both in Vngue in Pañcanada (Punjab). When the paṇa of 20 māṣas (and 100 guñjās), the copper coin would have been almost of the weight of the undern copper half nona coiṇ The table given by Nār. (parí 58-60) is: 4 kākinīs=māṣa, 20 māṣas=kārṣāpaṇa (which is the same as Andukā), 4 kārṣāpanas = dhānaka, 12 dhānakas = suvarna The table given by Br (as quoted in Sṃ C, II p. 99 and V. R. p. 667) is the same. Br. as quoted by Aparārka p 832 and V. R. p. 111 employs the word ‘nānaka’ for coin, which word also occurs in the Mṛcchakatikā and in Yāj II. 240-241. The Amarakośa states that niṣka and dināra are synonyms and also gives other meanings of niṣka Śabara in Jai. IV. 3 39 gives the striking example ‘no one would spend a kārṣāpaṇa for finding out a kākinī that he had lost’. The Arthaśāstra II 12 p 84 states that the superintendent of the mint should manufacture copper paṇas, half paṇas, kākinīs and half kākinīṣ The Viṣṇu Dh S V. 96 refers to a golden silver purāṇa or dharaṇa; 10 dharaṇas = one (silver) śatamāna. This table was used for silver coinṣ Thus a dharaṇa would be 1/10th of a pala as stated in the Bṛhatsaṁhitā (10. 13 palada- māsaka. Under the Guptas golden coins are mentioned as dināras, vide ‘Gupta Inscriptions’ p. 29 at p. 31 where there is a gift of 25 dināras in the Gupta year 93 and pp 38, 41, 261 (where it is stated that one bhikṣu was to be fed every day throughout the permanent endowment of 12 dināras). From the Baigram plate dated Gupta saṁvat 128 it appears that one dināra was equal to 16 rūpakas (silver coins) in E I vol XXI p 80. A Mathurā Ins of the 28th year of Hūviska speaks of the deposit of 550 purāṇas (E. I. vol XXI p. 55 at 61). Bhāskarācārya (who was born in śake 1036 and wrote his Siddhāntaśiromaṇi in 1072 śāle 1150 A. D ) gives the following table (in Līlāvatī I 2–4) • 20 varāṭakas = kākinī, 4 kākinīs = pana, 16 panas = dramma, 16 drammas = niṣka, 2 yavas = guñjā, 3 guñjās = valla (modern Marathi vāḷ), 8 vallas = dharaṇa, 2 dharaṇas = gadyāṇaka, 5 guñjās = māsaka, 16 māsas = karma, 4 karsas = pala and a karma of gold is called Svarṇa. It will be seen that Nār. and Līlāvatī differ as to kākiṇī. Gadyāṇakas of gold are referred to in the Paṭṭadakal pillar Ins of Kīrtivarman I (754 A. D.) where it is stated that a field of 30 nivartanas was purchased for thirty gadyāṇakas of gold (E I vol III. pp 6–7) From a verse of the Caturvimsatimata quoted by the Mit on Yāj III 258 it appears that gadyāṇaka was also a silver coiṇ From an inscription of Vikramāditya V near Gadag dated śake 934 it appears that fines for offences were levied in gadyāṇakas (E I vnl XX p 64) The following works may be consulted for further information on Indian coins viz Cunningham’s ‘Coins of Ancient India’ (1894), Rapson’s ‘ Indian coins’ (1897) in the Grundriss, C. J. Brown’s ‘ Coins of India ’ (in ‘the Heritage of India’ series, 1922) The Dharmadvaitanirṇaya (pp 137–139) and the Vaijayantī on Viṣṇu Dh S IV, 9 may be consulted for efforts to reconcile the various statements about Svarṇa, Niṣka &c. For an informing paper on the most ancient Denāru, vide Proceedings of the British Academy vol XVIII pp 211–266 where it is established that the earliest denarius period begins ahnut 187 B C Therefore Jolly’s assumptinn (in Recht und Sitte p 23 followed by Winternitz in ‘History of Indian Literature’ vnl II. p. 216 ṇ 4 that all Indian worḱs in which the word dināra occurs cannot have been cnmpnsed before 2nd century A D is unwarranteḍ Prof. Keith (JRAS for 1915 p 504) dies nnt accept Jolly’s assumptinn The dināra was variously defined According to Viṣṇugupta quoted in Hemādri’s Vratakhanda, a rūpala is 16th of suvarṇa and a dināra was equal to 28 rūpakas, while acc tn Nār and Kāt सुवर्ण and दीनार were synonyms The Dharmadvaitanirṇaya says that a kārṣāpaṇa (of silver it seems) was equal tn eight or ten dhabhukaṣ One of the verses of the Jñāneśvarī (composed in 1290 A D) that speaks of gold as रूपये (15 times in price of the same weight of silver) may he cited here ‘द्वै मांगार जरी पेपेरें । तरी राजवटीची अक्षरें । लाहे ( v १ लाखें ) तैचि सरें । जियापरी । ’ chap 17 verse 322 (Bhide’s and Madgavkar’s editions) śabhāgo dharaṇam). Nārada (pariśiṣṭa 57) expressly states that a silver kārṣāpaṇa is in vogue in the south i. e. a silver paṇa or kārṣāpaṇa was not universal.³⁵ A golden suvarṇa also comprised 80 guñjās, while the standard silver paṇa was of 32. Rhys Davids (in ‘ Buddhist India ’ p. 100) states that about the time of Buddha's birth transactions were carried on in terms of the kahāpaṇa, a square copper coin weighing about 144 grains and guaranteed as to weight and fineness by punch marks made by private individuals, that there were half and quarter kahā- panas also, that a kahāpaṇa would be now worth about ⅘ths of a penny, though its purchasing power was then equal to about one shilling of the present day. Therefore it is proper to under- stand that a paṇa or kārṣāpaṇa, when the word is used without any qualification, was meant to be one of copper and that prima facie the salaries in Kauṭilya were meant to be in copper panas This conclusion can be supported by various considera- tions Manu VII. 126 prescribes that the wages for the lowest menial servant (such as one who sweeps the house or brings water) is one paṇa a day and that of a superior menial servant 6 panas a day and that the former was to get in addition one pair of garments every six months and every month a droṇa of corn (which would be equal to 1024 muṣṭis according to the Mit. on Yaj III. 274). Whatever ages may be assigned to the Arthaśāstra and the present Manusmṛti the two works cannot be separated from each other, if at all, by more than a century or two. Therefore the economic conditions of the one may be held to have not differed much from those to which the other referṣ It is impossible to hold that the lowest menial servant got one gold paṇa a day besides over 30 muṣṭis of corn every day (1024 in a month). If that were so, the lowest menial servants of Kauṭilya’s days would have to be supposed to be a hundred times better off than their confreres in big cities like Bombay towards the end of the 19th century (when menial servants got from five to ten rupees a month without any allowance of grain). Therefore the paṇa in Kauṭilya V. 3 is not of golḍ Kauṭilya (in V. 3) says that a king who has a depleted treasury may make payment of salary by giving forest produce, cattle or fields along with small quantities of cash, that if he has under- taken to colonize a waste tract he may make payment of salary in cash only and not by bestowing a village. In connection with this he says that 60 panas are to be the equivalent of one ādhaka of corn ( sastivetanaśyādhakam kṛtvā hiraṇyānurūpam bhaktam kuryāt )³⁶ An ādhaka³⁸ came to 256 mustis (handfuls) of corn and even in famine times one ādhaka could not have cost 60 silver panas, much less golden ones In V. 3 Kauṭilya declares that an ordinary dūta should get ten paṇas for a journey of one yojana and twice the wages for each yojana up to one hundreḍ A yojana acc to Kaut. himself (II. 20) is equal to 8000 dhanus (acc to another reading 4000 dhanus), a dhanus being equal to four aratnis (each aratni being 24 angulas). So taking the highest figure a yojana was at the most about 9 or 10 miles ( or only 4 or five miles according to the other reading). To hold that 10 silver panas were allowed to an ordinary dūta for going even ten miles ( which he could cover in half a day or less ) would be too much. Hence also the panas in Kaut. V. 3 are only copper oneṣ When once it is settled that the panas were of copper, it easily follows that the salaries in panas were monthly. Artisans and craftsmen were, acc. to Kaut., to get 120 panaṣ If this were yearly, they would get only 10 panas a month, while, according to Manu quoted above, even the lowest menial was to get a pana a day. Therefore 120 panas (of copper) were the monthly salary of an artisaṇ A monthly salary is more natural and practical than a yearly one. Other ancient writers like Śaṅkha-Likhita (in Rājanītiprakāśa p. 252) contemplate a monthly salary for soldiers (viz. two suvarnas a month).³⁸ From the Nasik Inscription No. 12 (E. I. Vol. VIII. p. 82) we learn that in the early centuries of the Christian era 35 kārṣāpaṇas were equal to one suvarṇa.

Hopkins in ‘Position of the ruling caste’ J. A. O. S. vol. XIII. pp. 151-162 traces how the influence of the purohita grew. One cannot accept his views about there being three layers in the Mahābhārata and the conclusions from such dealing with the text that he draws, which are rather subjective. Gradually the importance of the purohita waneḍ As the Sukranītisāra cited above (n 150.) shows, long before that work he came to be omitted by several writers from the council of ministers and was supplanted by the Paṇḍita. The same functions came to be exercised by an officer called dharmādhyakṣa or dharmādhikaraṇika in Bengal and other countries The Matsyapurāṇa (215.24) states the qualifications of a dharmādhi-kārīṇ³⁹ Vide E I vol. 14 p. 156 at p. 160 of the Naihāṭi grant of Ballālasena, where we have both purohita and mahā-dharmādhyakṣa mentioned among the great functionaries of State and the Benares copper-plate of the Ceḍi king Karṇadeva in 1042 A D. in E I vol. II p 309 where we have mahādharmādhi-karanika but no purohita. Besides another officer called sāmvatsara (astrologer) gradually took over some of the functions of the purohita. The Visnudharmasūtra III. 75 (rājā ca sarvathā yeṣu sāmvatsarādhīnah syāt) requires the king to depend on the sāmvatsara in all matterṣ The Bṛhat-saṃhitā (2.9) states that a king without a sāmvatsara mistakes his path like a blind maṇ Kāṃ 4.33 and Viṣṇudharmottara II. 4. 5-16 recom-mend reliance on hiṃ Kauṭilya⁴⁰ IX. 4 was himself against too much reliance on astrology, while Yaj. I 307 holds that the rise and fall of kings depend on the (aspects or influence of ) planetṣ Senāpatī : The qualities of a commander-in-chief are stated in several places such as Kauṭilya (II. 33), Ayodhyā 100.30 (= Sabhā 5. 46), Sānti 85. 31-32, Matsya 215. 8-10, Agnipurāṇa 220. 1 ff, Kāṃ XVIII 27-44, Visnudharmottara II. 24. 4-6, Mānasollāsa II. 2, verses 90-92 p. 37. Acc. to the Agni- purāṇa 220. 1, Matsya 215. 10 the commander-in-chief must be either a brāhmaṇa or a kṣatriya. Śukra (II. 429-430) requires that a kṣatriya should be preferred as senāpatī, but if a valiant kṣatriya be not available a brāhmaṇa may be chosen, but a śūdra should not be choseṇ Acc. to the Mānasollāsa he should possess the following qualities: good family, character, courage, proficiency in (several) languages, cleverness in riding horses and elephants and in the science of arms, knowledge of omens and medicine, knowledge of the breeds of horses and of the difference between what is essential and non- essential, liberality, sweet speech, self-control, intelligence, resolutenesṣ In the Mahābhārata senāpatis are elected and consecrated (vide Udyoga 151, Drona 5, Karna 10), but this was not so in later timeṣ He is appointed by the king on his own initiative.

Dūta : ( Ambassador or messenger ). The word and the office of dūta as messenger was known in the most ancient timeṣ In Rg. I. 12.1, 1.161.3, VIII. 44.3 Agni is said to be the dūta and is requested to bring the gods to the sacrifice. There is also attached to the word the meaning of espionage, since Saramā, the bitch of the gods, is represented in Rg. X. 108. 2-4 as sent by Indra to find out the treasures of the Paniṣ The Udyogaparva ( 37.27, cr. eḍ 37.25 ) specifies the eight qualities of a dūta viz. he must not be stiff-necked, nor timid, nor dilatory, he must be kind and amiable, not liable to be won over by others, free from diseases, endowed with a fine mode of speech.⁴¹ Śānti 85.28 refers to seven qualitieṣ Vide Ayodhyā 100.35, Manu VII. 63-64, Matsyapurāṇa 215. 12-13 for the qualities of a dūta. The dūta should speak only what he has been ordered (by his king) to speak, otherwise he would be liable to be killed ( Udyogaparva 72.7, cr. eḍ 70.7 ). Sānti 85. 26-27 say that the person of the dūta is sacreḍ Kauṭilya devotes one chapter (I. 16) to the treatment of the subject of dūta. He states that the dūta is to be sent by the king after the line of policy has been settled at a council of ministers to the king who is to be attacked (vide Kāṃ XII 1 also). A dūta is of three kinds: (1) niśrṣṭārtha ⁴² (one to whom is entrusted full discretion as to what is to be said) is one who is possessed of the qualifications required in a minister (amātya), such as Kṛṣṇa from the Pāṇḍavas or the ambassadors in modern times; (2) parmitārtha (entrusted with a definite mission, an envoy) who possesses the same qualifications as the first less by one quarter; (3) śāsanahara (a mere carrier of royal writings or missives) who possesses only half the qualifications of the first. The Mit. on Yāj. I 328 lucidly explains the three varietieṣ Kaut. dilates at great length on the qualifications of the dūta, what he has to note while in the enemy country, how he is to behave (such as avoiding women and wine), how he is to gather information through spies; but all this has to be passed over for want of space. Vide Kām XII 2-24 for the same. Kāṃ (XII. 22-23) briefly sets out the following duties of the dūta; determining those who are inimical to the king to whom he is sent, winning over to his side the friends and relatives of the enemy king, finding out the (number and equipment of) forts, the economic resources and military strength of the enemy king, collection of news as to what the enemy intends to do, bringing over to his side the officers in charge of the districts of enemy country, collecting knowledge about the places of the enemy where battles can be waged by his king or whence he can pass away swiftly. Manu VII. 65 says that it is the dūta who brings about alliance or war. Kaut. says that when the dūta is accredited becomes displeased at the message he brings, the dūta should reply ⁴³ ‘All kings, you and others, speak through their dūta. Therefore dūtas have to deliver the message entrusted to them even if weapons are raised (to threaten them); even the lowest caste dūtas (cāṇḍālas) are not to be killed, what need be said about a dūta who is a III ] brāhmaṇa? This (that I utter) is the message of another. It is my duty to say it'. The Rāmāyaṇa (V. 52. 14-15) says that good men do not allow the killing of a dūta, but certain modes of dealing with him (viz lashing him, shaving his head) are allowed in certain caseṣ

A dūta is to be distinguished from a cāra or cāra (spy), as done by Kaut, Kāṃ XII. 32, Yāj. I. 328. Kāṃ XII. 33 says that a dūta is an open (prakāśa) spy, while a cāra is a spy who works in secret. In modern times also ' an ambassador is often nothing more than an honourable spy acting under the protect-ion of the law of nations' (Encyclopædia Britannica on 'espionage'). Kaut. devotes four chapters to spies (I. 11-14) and Kāṃ (XII. 25-49) also deals at great length with theṃ The Śukranītisāra (I. 334-336) states that the king should learn every day at night from his secret spies the intentions and actions of his subjects and officers, and the opinions of ministers, enemies, soldiers, the members of the assembly, relations and the women in the harem The cāra must, according to Kāṃ XII. 25, possess ability to infer the inner thoughts (of men), must have a good memory, must be soft in speech, have quick gait, be capable of enduring privations and heavy labour, swift in action, ready-witteḍ Kaut. (I. 11) says⁴⁴ that spies are those who work in the guise of a kāpaṭika (a bold pupil capable of know-ing the minds of others), udāsthita (a sham ascetic, who has fallen from the real duties of asceticism and is endowed with intelligence and pure character), gṛhapatika (a householder who is a cultivator that has not the means to maintain himself, has intelligence and is of pure character), a vaidehaka (a trader who cannot maintain himself by trade and is possessed of intelligence and pure character), a tāpasa (a spy practising austerities, who has either shaved his head or has matted hair and is desirous to maintain himself), a class-mate or colleague (sattrin), a desperate character (tīkṣṇa), a poisoner and a female mendicant. The first five of these are called by Kauṭilya five samsthās (groups or institutions), which should be honoured by the king with awards of money and marks of respect and through which the king is to test the purity of the character of his servantṣ Kauṭilya says that the spy called udāsthita should carry on agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade on land set apart for the purpose, should be supplied with plenty of gold and disciples and should afford to all (sham) ascetics food, clothing and lodging, direct them to detect particular crimes and report. The spy called tāpasa was to stay near the capital, to have many pupils, to pretend to eat once in a month or two only a handful of vegetables or grass and eat secretly his favourite disheṣ His disciples were to proclaim that he possessed supernatural powers, he should pretend to make predictions about gain or fires or fear from robbers after ascertaining from his pupils by nods and signs such eventṣ In I. 12 Kaut. deals with wandering spies (called sañcāra) viz. sattrins (who are orphans that are to be maintained by the State and that are taught palmistry, sorcery, tricks of legerdemain &c), tīkṣṇa (desperadoes who, regardless of their lives, may fight elephants for money), rasada (who have no affection even for their relatives, are indolent and cruel), bhikṣukī or parivrājikā (a poor brāhmaṇa widow, clever and desirous to earn her livelihood, honoured in the king's harem and visiting the families of mahāmātras or high ministers). These are to spy on the 18 tīrthas (mentioned on p. 112 above) in public. For spying on their private character persons pretending to be hump-backed, dwarfs, kirātas (piginies), the deaf and dumb, idiots, the blind, and others that are actors, dancers, singers and the like and women are to be employeḍ This information is to be tested by the persons belonging to the five saṁsthās (mentioned above on p. 129), but these are to act without their being known by the wandering spies and vice versa. Then further testing by other spies followṣ When the information received from these three sources tallies then it will be held reliable; if the information frequently disagrees, the spies should be secretly punished or dischargeḍ A similar rule about sending several spies on the same mission without their knowing each other is laid down by Viṣṇudharmot- tara II. 24. 66–67. Kaut in I. 13 deals with espionage on subjects in general (i.e. those in the capital and other parts of the country). Spies are to pretend to take sides, some praising the king as possessed of all good qualities, others qualifying that praise. They were also to report the rumours spreading among the people, to report whether there was discontent and the king was to honour those who were reported to be contented and to III ] bring round the discontented by conciliation, gifts, sowing dissensions among them or by punishing theṃ In I 14 Kauṭilya deals with the employment of spies for taking advantage of parties in a foreign State i. e. groups of persons angry with the foreign king or afraid of him or of persons who are ambitious or proud, who are to be won over by appropriate words and stimuli. It will be seen how there was a network of spies of all kinds, so much so that Kāṃ XII. 28 declares that spies are the king's eyes ( cāracakṣur mahīkṣuḥ ). The Viṣṇudharmottara II. 24. 63 says the same ( ' cārāṇas-cāracakṣuṣuḥ ' ) and also Udyoga 34. 34 ' cārāḥ paśyanti rājānaḥ '. In IV. 4-6 Kauṭilya dilates ⁴⁵ upon the employment by the samāhartṛ ( Collector ) of a host of spies for suppressing those who are thorns ( or disturbers of peace ), these being employed for detecting judges ( dharmastha ) and superintendents of various departments that take bribes, counterfeiters of coins, adulterers, thieves and robbers and other criminalṣ Kauṭilya relies in extreme cases on spies even in the decision of judicial matterṣ He says ( III. 1 last verse ) 'when owing to the depositions of witnesses the plaintiff's case and the defendant's case are both destroyed, when the cause of either of the parties is found through the spies to be false, then the decree shall be passed against that party'.⁴⁶ In Droṇaparva 75. 4 it is said that Kṛṣṇa had his spies in the army of Duryodhana and vice versa (74.1). Śānti 69. 8-12 and 140. 39-42 mention the places where spies are to be set ⁴⁷ up and emphasizes that they should not know each other. One need not feel surprised at the machinery of espionage that Kauṭilya so elaborately describeṣ All governments in modern times employ spies, informers and secret agents to keep themselves informed of the activities, views and resources of their opponentṣ We know also how the Indian Police, in order to catch offenders against the Prevention of Gambling Act or other similar Acts, employ agents with marked coins or notes and draw in their net unsuspecting people.